Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020003592025 2026:GAU-NL:363 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/103/2025 SHRI YEHAI YEPTHO AND 3 ORS FATHER OF LATE KHETOSHE, PIMLA VILLAGE, DHANSIRI SUB- DIVISION, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIAMAPUR AND 2 ORS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIMAPUR NAGALAND (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING POLICY NO. 322200/31/2017/4073) Advocate for the Petitioner : ABI SENOTSU, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.06.2026 Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel for the Applicants as well as Ms. Kim Pienyu, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company. Page No.# 2/5 2. The instant interlocutory application has arisen out of an application by the prospective appellants, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a delay of 177 (one hundred seventy-seven) days in preferring an appeal against the judgment & award dated 27.09.2024, passed by the Member, MACT, Dimapur in MAC Case No.99/2017 whereby the Applicants as Claimants were awarded an amount of ₹ 4,03,000/- (Rupees four lakhs three thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, in respect of the grounds for condonation, has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 3 of the application. It is submitted that the four applicants are the family members of the deceased, who was killed in the road accident. It is stated and submitted that initially the Applicants were not even aware that there is a provision for filing an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is also stated and submitted that after coming to know about the said legal position they approached several learned counsels but none were willing to take up the matter on the ground that there is less chance for enhancement of the claim amount. Eventually they engaged the present learned counsel for preferring the appeal. In this process, a delay of 177 days occurred, for which condonation is being prayed for. 4. It is also submitted on behalf of the Applicants that service by dasti was effected upon the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (owner & driver respectively), followed by filing of compliance affidavit, but they have chosen not to appear. However, the Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company, has entered appearance through learned counsel, Ms. Kim Page No.# 3/5 Pienyu. 5. The Insurance Company has filed a written objection stating that delay has not been explained properly. It is also submitted and stated that the awarded amount along with interest of ₹1,33,713/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-three thousand seven hundred thirteen only) was received by the Claimants on 19.11.2024. It is stated and submitted that only after benefitting from the award, they have chosen to file the instant appeal. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel refers to the decision of Post Master General & Ors v. Living Media India Ltd & Anr reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 and draws the attention of this Court to paragraphs 24, and 27 to 33. 6. I have perused the materials and considered the rival submissions, including the decisions cited at the Bar. 7. It is well-settled that the principle behind prescribing a limitation period is to give finality to the litigation. The expiry of the limitation period gives rise to a right in favour of the other party and that aspect cannot be overlooked in construing the question of condonation of delay, especially in a civil dispute. Paragraphs 24, 28 & 29 of Post Master General (supra) are reproduced herein below: “24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under: {Pundlik Jalam Case, (2008) 17 SCC 448} ‘29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do Page No.# 4/5 not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. ...’ 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.” 8. That case was one pertaining to government departments, and the Hon’ble Apex Court, observing that limitation applies equally to the State, did not find the explanation sufficient and refused to condone the delay. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also contended that no specific dates have been mentioned in the explanation for condonation of delay. 10. In claim proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the beneficial nature of the legislation would also have a bearing on the aspect of legal condonation. 11. In the case of Post Master General (supra), the court was not Page No.# 5/5 convinced about the bona fides for the case of delay condonation. However, in the instant case, the explanation projected by the Applicants’ side does not indicate any lack of bona fide; rather, it has been frankly stated that the Applicants, who are the family members of the deceased, were unaware about the provisions and their request for filing an appeal was refused by several learned counsels on the ground that there is no sufficient ground. 12. I have also taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the Applicants that the deceased was stated to be a farmer and the learned Tribunal took a notional income of ₹ 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in this context, the learned counsel submits that in quantifying the notional income of ₹ 3,000/-, the Tribunal may have erred on the lower side. 13. Upon giving consideration to the various aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Applicants, who are the family members of the deceased, should be given a chance to prefer the appeal for enhancement. In such view of the matter, the delay of 177 days is hereby condoned. I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. 14. The appeal may be put up for admission hearing subsequently. JUDGE Comparing Assistant